Got a bone to pick with us? Did we get something really wrong?
Did we get something right? Need to vent?

Then write a letter to ESR
for publication! Names withheld by request and all letters are subject to editing
for length, clarity or language. Letters from anywhere on the political spectrum
are welcome and will be printed.Please state whether you wish your name
to appear with the email.

Newspapers have the disadvantage of always carrying yesterday's news. Usually
the time lag is barely noticeable since radio and television reporters steal
their ideas from the morning papers. (And print reporters often use broadcast
news as crib notes. That's how you get six months of headlines like this: Is
SARS over?)

Sometimes, however, the papers look as though they have arrived not by paperboy,
but by time machine, from another era. Just try looking at a paper from September
11th, 2001. On that day, The New York Times said that Donald Rumsfield was "declaring
war on bureaucracy in the Pentagon" because "bloated bureaucracy
[is] a security threat". Indeed! There is also a front-page teaser about
shark attacks.

I experienced the same sense of lag on Sunday, after the capture of Saddam
Hussein.

On the same day the world saw Saddam being checked for head lice, Canadians
were reading an article from the Toronto Star's Middle East correspondent about
traffic
jams in Baghdad.

It says: "Under Saddam, the punishment for dangerous driving was cut
and dried: a month in prison. Now, said Mahmoud [a driving instructor in Baghdad],
some of the most aggressive drivers are so out of control they actually start
playing chicken with his students when they see his bright yellow training
car on the road." Why, in fact, "Mahmoud himself witnessed a deadly
episode of road rage last month." Another Iraqi, asked about the traffic,
is quoted as saying, "I feel bitter about it. We think of America as the
most civilized country in the world and, now that they are here, we are more
backward than ever."

Here is my reconstruction of the thought processes of the average Baghdad
resident as perceived by a Toronto Star reporter:

"I'm not too sure about our fearless leader's policy of mass graves for
dissidents, but I do like his plan to ease traffic congestion by imprisoning
drivers. Man, that commute is rough. I guess that's why I was one of the 100%
of Iraqis who voted for Saddam in the last election. Down with American-style
gridlock."

Of course, by the time this piece of anti-American propaganda reached Torontonian's
breakfast tables, it was yesterday's news.

James Boston
Toronto, Canada

Re: The National Association of Black Journalists doesn't speak for everyone

I hope that all Americans take a critical look at where political correctness
is getting us. In trying to silence those whose opinions may offend certain
groups, is to take a shot at the freedom that our ancestors fought so hard
for.

I just received an e-mail by the National Association of Black Journalists
stating that an apology had been issued by the Naples (Fla.) Daily News for
an article written by Brent Batten, called "Why Hip-Hop Winterfest went
bust." Batten writes an explanation for the abortive hip-hop event in
a dialect 'written for fans of the genre.' NABJ called the article 'patently
offensive.' The article
was a satire on hip-hop culture.

My fiancé and I were enraged to hear that NABJ demanded an apology
for an editorial piece, especially for a satirical one because satire and parody
are theoretically sacredly protected by First Amendment rights. [Read the apology
here.]

As an American who appreciates my rights, I believe everyone is entitled to
share their thoughts and satirical comments in an 'open market place of ideas.'

Moreover, a side not on this matter: I do not appreciate other blacks speaking
for me and every black person on Earth. Despite who gets all the media attention,
we are not monolithic in thinking. I am angry that Batten was portrayed as
being insensitive toward blacks because he mocked the hip-hop dialect. I am
black and hip-hop has nothing to do with me. My life is dictated by principles,
not ever-changing definitions of 'blackness.'

Ariana Ford

Re: Stem cell research

At his press conference on Monday, December 15, President Bush said "God's
gift to the world is freedom." This is my response
to the President's remark:

Mr.President, please allow our scientist the freedom to develop "cures" for
millions of people who are suffering from chronic illnesses. Allow and support "somatic
cell nuclear transfer" or therapeutic stem cell research to proceed unfettered.
Put aside your personal religious views as well as the religious views of others
and grant our scientists who see so much potential in therapeutic stem cell
research, the freedom to do what they do best, doing research for cures. Fifty
years from now, history will look back and agree that your total support was
the right decision.

After reading this article by Jeremy Reynalds (Dec. 1, 2003) and researching
the issue further at www.rsusaga.com I've come to the conclusion that the police
interviewed in this case either don't have a technological clue or they have
an agenda. Did they 'jump the gun' in deciding these kids were guilty and now
can't back down? Since when does a police officer shoot off his mouth to the
press? The Claremore Police Dept. needs to look into this. It isn't a good
thing to have a 'loose cannon' on the force. Looks to me like the Fellmans
could have another case before the court, one of slander and libel by Officer
Norris.

As someone who loves Michael Moriarty's work (I think I own every one of his
sublime CD's, films, books, and even talking books), I was surprised to read
his article on Barbra Streisand and the recent Reagan film. Mr. Moriarty has
spent much of his life celebrating freedom of expression -- indeed, it's the
theme of his book, The Gift of Stern Angels. While the Reagan film may be simple-minded
and ill-timed (my own husband died of Alzheimer's Disease after an eleven-year
battle so I empathize with Mrs. Reagan), CBS's burial of the movie at Showtime
seems to involve the same right which Mr. Moriarty holds so close to his heart.
Is he suggesting that such freedoms are to be protected only in instances where
the expression is sufficiently artistic, accurate, and properly timed? And,
if so, who is qualified enough and objective enough to pass judgment on future
films?

Linda Brengle
New Albany, Indiana

Michael Moriarty responds:

Showtime is freedom of speech to millions of people. Ms. Streisand, her
husband and the program were not censored. For those, like yourself,
who wish to see
the film, it will be available. The book was not burned....just put on another
shelf in the library.

We got Jessica Lynch because the Military thought it was a good PR story. If
backfired. The reports of bravery in the face of death were lies. The reports
that she was in mortal danger from Iraqi soldiers were lies. And her Iraqi
rescuer was cold calculating con man, who successfully parleyed the rescue
of Jessica into asylum in the U.S. and millions of dollars.

Why does the public continue to be enamored of Jessica after the truth came
out that she was an just unfortunate victim of war? Black Americans know why.
Because she has an all American white, blond haired, blue eyed look. The public
feels good about her. She's their daughter, sister, niece, or neighbor.

The real hero according to Shoshana Johnson and Jessica was a soldier named
Miller. I forget his first name. They, and others, credit him with saving their
lives by killing seven Iraqi soldiers. During the fight, Shoshana, Miller,
and others claimed that their weapons repeatedly jammed when fired. But that's
another story. Miller feels a little bitter about the whole thing. They all
do. They don't blame Jessica. They blame the military and the media.

Rape is one of many terrible tortures that a man or woman may endure when captured.
At this time, women and men accept the risk voluntarily. They are in best position
to make that judgement. Americans, who cannot stomach risks to female soldiers
in war will just have to learn deal with it.

The men (George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and the neo conservatives),
who are responsible for this war, are all too old and rich to be in combat
and when they were young they avoided it. Moreover none of their children
or grandchildren are fighting in Iraq. You must be aware that these men are
referred
to pejoratively by military men as "chicken hawks." Colin Powel
is only one among then who knows first hand the savagery of war.

Sandra Robinson

Re: George W. Bush's trip to Baghdad

What U.S. President George W. Bush did by taking the opportunity and chance
of flying to Iraq to visit America's military personnel took true courage on
the part of our Commander-In-Chief. His actions showed his caring and compassion
for our troops, and expressed those same thoughts and feelings for the families
of our G.I.'s.

But I would also like to give a big thumbs up to former First Lady, and Democratic
Senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Despite her liberal politics,
and all the scandals surrounding her family during their years in both Arkansas,
and the White House; Senator Rodham Clinton also exhibited caring, concern,
and even compassion by having the courage to enter Afghanistan, and Iraq, to
also visit America's sons and daughters in the U.S. military.

Some folks uttered criticisms of Senator Rodham Clinton for making the journeys,
but is it based on her politics? Or can any of us read her mind, so as to question
and cast doubt on her motives for making what is most definitely a hazardous
trip to both regions?

Is it truly impossible to believe that any Democratic elected official can
feel for our soldiers and their families so much that they would put aside
fears for their own safety, and take that risk to go into dangerous territory,
simply to let these soldiers and their families know that "Hey, I DO care!"?

In truth, both the President, and Senator Rodham Clinton, took a risk, visited
our military personnel during a holiday in which we all should be grateful
enough to give thanks to God for His blessings, and we should also be grateful
that our elected officials would think enough of our people overseas, far from
home, to give of their own time, and put their own lives in possible harms'
way, simply to tell these men and women "We appreciate you, very much!"

President Bush, and Senator Rodham Clinton did far more this Thanksgiving
2003 than what President Bill Clinton ever did through 8 years in office.